The Universe Model: A Simple Study of Infinite Hydrogen Atoms

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Model Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a theoretical model of the universe composed solely of infinitely many hydrogen atoms arranged in a cubic grid. Participants explore the implications of this model over time, including concepts such as clumping, symmetry breaking, and the potential for contraction or expansion of the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the model represents an unstable equilibrium, where random fluctuations could lead to clumping of hydrogen atoms.
  • Questions arise about whether the universe would experience overall contraction and if the average density would increase over time.
  • There is a suggestion to apply Friedmann equations to the model, with emphasis on specifying initial conditions such as energy density and the Hubble parameter.
  • One participant argues that if the overall density is set to omega = 1, the universe should be expanding, and clumping would not increase overall density as the volume of space increases.
  • Another participant challenges the assumption of expansion, suggesting that a spatially flat universe could also contract.
  • Discussions include the implications of a cosmological constant, with some arguing it should be excluded from a simple model.
  • A historical perspective is introduced, referencing Einstein's considerations of forces preventing clumping and the implications of General Relativity on the model.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the dynamics of the universe in this model, particularly concerning expansion versus contraction and the role of the cosmological constant. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached on these points.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the initial state of the universe, the isotropy of the lattice, and the dependence on the chosen values for energy density and the Hubble parameter. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the implications of clumping and the nature of forces at play in this theoretical framework.

  • #31
This simple universe obviously do not colapse.
In the formulation we have to say how old is that matter.

Suppose the universe is infinite, homogeneous, static at the beginning (i.e. cold start) and started his existence just now, or at a finite time.

It cannot clump, it will not colapse, whatever the equations that someone can put forward.

The question of metric is irrelevant. We have objects equally spaced, and beeing all objects equal, a rod is constructed from one of them. 3D euclidian space is enough, because GR will have an overall null effect.

Ok. Now we displace one object from the 'correct' position. What happens now?

The answer is unexpected.

We will have a 'void', and the void will be growing, growing, slowly but exponentially growing, as we see in our marvelous universe.

To visualize : punch a hole in a balloon, and the hole will get bigger and bigger.

This universe is so simple that I've never found it discussed in the textbooks, but it adheres to reallity.

We are so used to hear that matter clumps, that we have difficulties to understand that void (empty space, no objects) repels matter, instead the more usual way 'matter atracts matter.'

As an aside effect the 2nd thermodynamic law breaks under this scenario.

The scenario is the same even if the universe is finite in extension provided that it is finite in time, because the gravitational effects propagate at a finite speed 'c'.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K